User talk:TVFAN24/Archive 2

Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning WBBM-TV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

May 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at WMAQ-TV, you may be blocked from editing.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit, if you want to revert it on a content issue you are free to do that. However what you removed clearly was not vandalism and shouldn't be removed nor warned as such. --WGFinley (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship Observations & Advice
Just to document again for you what we have discussed previously.


 * Content you add to articles needs to be sourced and verifiable.
 * Lists aren't inherently bad but they should be sourced and you should keep this essay in mind when working with them.
 * Reversions should always be explained at least in the edit comments and on the articles talk page, particularly if there is a dispute.
 * Last, but not least, be careful about your emotions that you tie up related to ownership of articles. You often express feelings of ownership and being slighted.  If you more closely looked at this as collaboration you would do better.

I wish you luck and harmonious editing, check out that club if you need some more help.

--WGFinley (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the Former Staff Lists for TV Stations
I have been fighting this for some time now. Deconstructthis has not listened to reason regarding the importance of remembering those past staff members, and he mounted a wholesale campaign of simply deleting them. He started by going to the TV station articles that I wrote myself. When I appealed his deletions, I got jumped by 3 or 4 other Wiki editors who decided not to make an exception to what I perceive to be a ridiculous requirement. There is a way around it, though. Simply go to each station, and make each former staff member's name a link to a separate article. Then, they will have to be included, because his only claim was that they were unreferenced in Wikipedia. Any help you can be in this effort would be wonderful.. I think others who have discovered that they now don't have a link to former staff members at stations, would jump on the bandwagon.Csneed (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to chime in here, because I was also involved in the process of this. I agree that former staff can be included in the sections relevant, however, the only thing I would ask for is references. Just writing a name down does nothing for me. I'm not from any of these markets, how would I know that person worked there. And what makes that person notable in the first place to be on that list (why should I want/need to know who they are/were?). I like it the way it is, we only accept names that are actually truly notable. Wikipedia is not a place that we should put the name of everyone who ever worked at a given place. You do not see that on company pages for example. I also see a BLP issue. What if I worked at a television station and didn't want to see my name on a list like that? Not everyone that ever worked at a television station should be included in a given article. HOWEVER... if you can find significant proof from an outside source (not your head, that doesn't count :D) that said person worked there, and is notable enough, I wouldn't have a problem. Cite it properly and it's fine. Policies to look at include the one I linked above, this one, and this one. Keep in mind, I have been a regular editor on Wikipedia since 2006. I am not attempting to start a fight, I am following the given guidelines to make this a better encyclopedia. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  02:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I am understanding what Csneed is saying (and if I am, I am highly surprised) is to create redlinks, that's a bad idea. Redlinks are almost always removed as unnecessary entries and will be removed as non-notable.  Not notable enough for an article, not notable enough for the page.  I suggest TVFAN24 not go this route and work with her mentor and maybe go back to the sandbox for awhile, or try some tea. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at WMAQ-TV, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 02:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To Answer Your Question
Yes, it would be. It would be creating articles, in violation of WP:POINT, that are non-notable and would be deleted anyway. I highly recommend you do not go forward with that plan of action. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 07:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dana Adams


A tag has been placed on Dana Adams requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brad Goode


A tag has been placed on Brad Goode requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Your behavior has been taken to ANI. See here. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 07:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Chad Peterson Woods DiMera
Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 (Part 2)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at WMAQ-TV, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you vandalize any page again, you will'' be reported to AIV. STOP NOW.''  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC) 02:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)\
 * Sorry about the revert, I hit the wrong button. Just passing through! -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  03:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This warning was out of line, the edit clearly was not vandalism, the revert was explained and a rationale was placed on the talk page. That being the case, you need to be careful about stirring up an edit war immediately after a page comes out of protection TVFAN.  --WGFinley (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Apprentice 4
From what I notice quickly everything looks correct. It would use 14 columns since there were 13 weeks plus a column for the contestants names. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've found the way to thwart Deconstructthis
I have found it.. it's the way to stop Deconstructthis and his libelous attempts to discontinue the "Former On-Air Staff" categories on TV stations. Go to the WATE-TV and WSYX-TV pages. See where I have entered my link to where I am working now. If it is done at every TV station (which may take a while), we can re-insert former staff members, and there's no way he'll have an argument to de-listing them, because there will be a link to where that person is now. The link has to look like mine under Former On-Air Staff or whatever the station has listed):


 * Calvin Sneed], now news anchor, chief investigative reporter at WTVC, Chattanooga.

He can't get around it. We got him.. playinig his own Wiki game. hehe.Csneed (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't a game, and you obviously don't know what the word "libel" means (by definition, it's something that someone says, so removing a person from Wikipedia can never be libel). However, oddly enough, your actual goal is fine, just do it a little differently. Don't use a "direct link". Instead, use a reference, and the "Cite web" template. Note that this won't actually work for all "former staff", because not all news stations have bios of their on air staff.  Also, it technically doesn't get to the issue of notability--that is, just because we can verify that someone worked at Station X, doesn't actually mean that their work there is important enough to be featured in the article.  Note that WP:NLIST says "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)."  That is, not every single person who was on air talent at a broadcaster is important enough to be described in prose in the text, and so not every single person should be included in a list.
 * Please do not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. We have all sorts of policies, guidelines, etc., that govern what information can and can't be on Wikipedia. The fact that you personally think something should be on while others shouldn't doesn't mean this is a fight or a game. Instead, you need to talk civilly, calmly, collaborate, and, if necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Editors again
Apparently, I, myself cannot post the link above, because Wiki editors consider it "self-promotion." So apparently, if you post it, it's not self-promotion, because it isn't me doing it.Csneed (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You fail to see Wikipedia has policies in place to prevent things like this. Please read WP:ANYBIO, as well as Conflict of interest, and WP:BLP. Adding yourself into an article and attempting to get around policies is not a good idea here on Wikipedia. Gaming the system will only lead to a ban. Also, I would watch the personal attacks on other editors (I'm referring to your tone of voice, and your choice of words "I've found a way to thwart Deconstructhis"). I'd seriously consider that a personal attack if I were Deconstructhis. I urge you to stop at once, otherwise I will not hesitate to report you to an administrator. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  02:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Swift Justice with Nancy Grace copy and paste
Hello. Please do not copy and paste from other websites as you did here from the site Broadcasting Cable. WP:Copy-paste says, "In 99.9% of cases, you may not copy-paste text from other sources into Wikipedia (short quotations aside), because it would violate copyright and/or constitute plagiarism." Thank you. — Mike  Allen   23:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Access Hollywood and E! News
Hey there, please check the official websites of Access Hollywood and E! News; I have noticed a copyright that seems to belong to NBCUniversal. See also the talk page by clicking here. CHAK 001 (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A question about a template entry (that's not there)
Please see this "Talk:" page [section]. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WGN-TV
Please use the talk page before restoring the list of names at WGN-TV, as they don't belong in the article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Thank you. - SudoGhost 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While I do feel that SudoGhost is moving a little fast on the WGN article, I think that his preferred version is more likely to match a general consensus than yours. I recommend not edit warring about whether or not to include the names, and instead continue discussing it on the article talk page.  It's very possible that we need some form of dispute resolution, like an RfC.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

America's Next Top Model
I have regard on your decision to re-use the previous chart and the premiere dates are should not in the "Cycles" chart. The supposed to be "new" chart is used to follow on Survivor and Big Brother and several other American reality shows. ApprenticeFan work 23:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WBBM-TV
Consensus has been reached. We've been through this before. The list of names is not notable. Please see the talk page before reverting the edits. Again, consensus has been reached. We can not list every employee that works at WBBM-TV, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, posting those names could potentially be a violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding living persons. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  20:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Cast members
Please do not delete or change cast members on the List of Days of our Lives cast members page until AFTER their last date. Per page rules, we do not change these. Rm994 (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the same rules for the removal of cast members applies to the addition of them. We do not list them until AFTER Days has debuted in ALL areas. Rm994 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Having to continously go behind you and clean up is becoming quite tiresome. At this point, you should know better than to remove references just because of "how it looks". References are there to establish notability, and provide support for our articles. Unreferenced articles end up being deleted. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CITE. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Same goes with B&B. Just cause it aired in Canada, does not mean it's aired in US. B&B is a US soap, so we go by the US airdate. So therefore, he has not aired. Once again, patience my friend. You've been told for DAYS, why wouldn't the same go for B&B? Musicfreak7676 (talk) 4:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be of particular interest to you to read WP:OWN. Anyone can edit this site, and the fact that "you like to handle" the additions of new or returning characters is not reason to continue to add them before their debut date. Other editors have expressed concern about your continuous disregard of this rule, and if this behavior continues, it might be taken to administrators. I assure you, no one is going to "beat you to the punch"...and you'll still be able to help :) Rm994 (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, you've done so with Debbi Morgan and her premiere as Yolanda "Harmony" Hamilton on Y&R's page. She has not aired yet. Stop trying to be the one and only power editor of these pages. Wait until after the full episode has aired in the US. Then you are free to add her. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 9:34 06 October 2011 (UTC)

All My Children
One of Wikipedia's rules is that we don't include the future on templates and infobox. Since AMC hasn't aired its last episode yet, you can't say it is no longer on the air. Patience my friend. In only 3 hours, you'll have all the pleasure updating the templates and infobox. However, as per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, please don't include any informations about Prospect Park on them; only the informations about the run on ABC. Thank you for your understanding. Farine (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

One Life to Live and The Revolution
Despite claims by some soap opera websites, ABC has NOT released an exact date for the ending of One Life to Live nor has it for the beginning of The Revolution. The only thing that ABC has made official, thus far, is that all of theses changes will happen in January 2012.

In the case of One Life to Live, this isn't the first time that you are being notified about this behavior. So please do not add again theses bogus dates on articles unless you can back it up with a reliable source confirmed by ABC.

Thank you Farine (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

News personalties
Hello there, I reverted your edits for WGN-TV, WLS-TV, WBBM-TV, WMAQ-TV, and WFLD because you removed all the references. Just like RM994 told you just days before they establish notability and editors can and will delete those sections. You may want to read WP:BLP, WP:NLIST, and WP:V to get you more familiarize.Bobjim45 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

CW templates
I noticed that you chopped down the CW Network template. I restored the original that links to a lot of older shows and created a separate template for the current and upcoming. If you like these templates, please speak up at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_7. They are on the verge of being deleted in a close debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
I have repeatedly asked you not to add/delete cast members until after they debut from List of Days of our Lives cast members. I am now turning you over to administrators and let them decide whether or not to let you continue editing here. Rm994 (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD notice
Thanks again for your time and assistance on the TV templates. Again they are under discussion. Since you seem to think they are a worthwhile time expenditure, I thought I would notify you of the TFD at Templates for discussion. Please comment there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to WMAQ-TV. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bobjim45 (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Please do not re-add unsourced statistics to this article without providing backup references that meet WP:VERIFY.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Bachelor (US TV series), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Please do not remove references as you did in this edit  Sottolacqua  (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm on to a page. Most of the users removed all of the statistics and average rankings. For clever as they are, they left one ******* piece of evidence that gives sloppy handwriting with the Nintendo 3DS Internet Browser. Create a page that holds DWTS rankings at once! --Plankton5165 (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

One Life to Live
You've recently added two actors that have agreed to join the show online with this edit, but you did not include any source for it. You did include a reference name. But without a url link to view the source, a reference target name means absolutely nothing.

Can you please add a source for your edit? If not, your edit will be reverted or deleted.

Thank you Farine (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Word of Warning
I noticed you continue to add unsourced material to articles, and I am letting you know that it is not advisable to do so. You could possibly be banned permanently from Wikipedia if you continue to add unsourced material on any page, including television stations. This is a heads up to stop doing what your doing right away. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Red Links
Please stop removing red links from articles ... they are perfectly acceptable per Manual of Style (links) and exist to encourage the creation of new articles. When these articles are created, the links to them are already in place. Obviously infant actors will probably not have articles anytime soon and can be unlinked, but an adult actor could presumably be deserving of an article at some point in the future. That's why it's important to have red links. Soapfan2013 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding Soapfan, they're infant actors because they don't have enough creditable acting gigs to warrant a page for themselves. You're not understanding what we're saying, and you're beginning to have WP:OWN of these articles, which is not allowed. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Melanie Layton Kiriakis Jonas
Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing OLTL Cast Members
There's no need to remove all those cast members, especially if they're exiting. They still remain. And you've now created tons of work for someone (likely me) to go and revert all those edits. They can be removed once OLTL has left its broadcast history. And you can reply to this message, and not create an unrequired one on my page. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series)
Please stop reverting this article to a version that contains large amounts of unsourced WP:IINFO/WP:NOT. Formatting the Presenters and Judges section as tables with color-coded cells filled with diamonds decreases the readability of the article. Reintroducing the poorly formatted table in the Couples section is a duplication of what's already presented in List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors. Instead of edit warring and reverting this article to a version that fails to address many of the standards in WP:MOS and WP:VERIFY, please discuss your issues on the talk page.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Diana DeGarmo
Listen, Soap Opera Digest over-rides Y&R man. The soap itself is not a creditable source. I've been yelled at changing things due to the soap and told they aren't credibtable themselves. DeGarmo, according to SOD is recurring. She's in a recurring gig. You can reply to this post to talk to me if you wish. But she's recurring and reporting me for vandalism? For all the times you've been yelled at? Really?? Musicfreak7676 (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Musicfreak. I just felt that she should be left alone until the soap itself says she is recurring. I know you mean well as do I. I try to be the best editor on Wikipedia that I can be. I never intentionally put things on here just to vandalize. I find a lot of people put random names with no source all the time and as you can see I remove it immediately. Take care and have a good holiday :) TVFAN24 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The soap won't confirm anything, as they don't comment on the status of their actors. Soap Opera Digest simply over-rides Y&R because they're a third party source, I wasn't disputing what the credits say. But SOD, as a third party source, say that DeGarmo is recurring, and she, herself said, that she isn't there for a long amount of time, and hopes to be around for when Idol rolls into town. And I did source my edit, to put her own recurring. I don't want conflict over this, I just want the most precise character pages. You too, enjoy your holidays! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Your recent editing history at Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Improperly sourced content about The Revolution on the 2012 in American television article
Thank you for your contributions about the Revolution start date on the 2012 in American television article.

However, the source that you've added is an old article from April 2011 that doesn't say anything at all about The Revolution starting specifically in January 16, 2012. Can you please go add the proper source at this instant. Thank you. Farine (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok I now added the proper source. TVFAN24 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Final warning
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia by inserting unsourced or poorly source content, as you did at One Life to Live with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Farine (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

American Idol
Greetings ... while I appreciate people discussing changes on a talk page instead of reverting continually, making a single statement and then going back and rearranging things the way you like them is just as bad. The better course of action would have been to leave everything as it was, regardless of its current form, then build consensus and then make the change after consensus has been reached. I know I specifically called out JackJackUK and Hzh, but your edit summary of "I Have Responded To The Discussion Board. Please Leave This As Is. Thank You" can be construed as edit-warring as well. As such, I highly suggest you read this section and consider yourself warned at the same level as the other two. Technically, since you've already had a Level 4 warning posted, I should report this as disruptive, but I'm trying to be fair; I haven't reported the other two, and I'm not reporting you ... yet. This needs to stop and it needs to stop now, so please leave things alone and talk it out. Thank you.

-- McDoob AU  93  19:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I tried. Since you decided to change the order without even trying to discuss this with fellow editors, I'm making this official ...

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- McDoob AU  93  23:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Concerned
I'm getting concerned you are slipping into old habits of dictating the way things are on articles without discuss your changes with other editors. Please don't start down that road again. You need to work with other editors, propose reasons for your changes and engage in discussion and not just change them, get reverted, wait a while and change them again.

--WGFinley (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Inviting You into Discussions
I'm inviting you into these discussions:. Figured you'd like to be included, as a big contributor to the soaps. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Returning to Your Old Ways
Hey, noticed you're returning to your old ways adding/removing people before the episode has aired. Just wanted to make sure you don't go down that path again. (You can reply here, not on my page) Happy Holidays! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You know better than to add unsourced info to articles as you did to List of Days of our Lives cast members. That source said nothing about Jai Rodriguez debuting in January. Rm994 (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please respect the consensus of discussion
I see that you kept reverting to your own preferred way of listing names in the American Idol page, ignoring whatever that was stated in the discussion page. No one appears to support your position, and as I have said, you are wrong in your chronological ordering. Please respect what was discussed. Since others have disputed your position, please go to the discussion page to discuss further if you want any changes, don't do it when there is no support for you. Hzh (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on American Idol. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''Slow-motion edit wars are still edit wars, especially when consensus has pointed in another direction. Please do not change this again unless consensus has changed to say that your method is preferred. --''  McDoob AU  93  18:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring on American Idol. You won't be unblocked until you agree to stop changing the content without consensus for your revisions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd be the first to say that an indef block may be harsh, but at the same time, I do have a concern. Your unblock request talks about how busy the holiday season is. That's all well and good, but you also made the same change here on New Year's Day, as well as the one earlier today. In both cases, no edit summary was provided ... you just did it. And the last post on the discussion of this topic on the talk page was December 3, while you have offered only one statement in the discussion ... after which you promptly changed the order in the infobox to the way you liked it. My question: how do we know this won't happen again? -- McDoob  AU  93  19:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm not overwhelmed by your answer. How could you make the same relatively complicated edit six times and not be aware that you were making an edit that there wasn't consensus for?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How about this. If you unblock me not only will I never go past a consensus again, but you have my word that I will not do any editing until Monday. That way it gives me the weekend to think about the situation and give me time to reflect on my actions.  If you see there is any editing before Monday, you have my permission to block me indef.  Please have a heart in this situation since its the new year and I love to make helpful contributions to articles and all and I promise no more edit warring from me.  I am trying to take responsibilites for my actions.  Thank you so much. TVFAN24 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Taking responsibility for one's actions is admirable. To that effect, how about telling Kww and other concerned users (like myself) how you comprehend that the actions that led to being blocked were wrong (specific details are encouraged) and how you will prevent them from occurring in future (again, the more specifics the better)? I would definitely read this section for more tips. Best of luck. -- McDoob  AU  93  22:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To all concerned users (Kww, McDoobAU93, Wgfinley, etc) I understand that many warnings were sent to me in regards to me reverting an article that there was a consensus already reached in. I acted very selfishly and wanted to have my way.  Now that I have been blocked, I realize what a privilege it is to make edits on wikipedia and I promise to NEVER make revert edits that have already reached consensus.  I was wrong and acted very poorly to not only the Wikipedia staff, but to my fellow mentor and I am ashamed of myself for acting so foolishly.  I can honestly say that if I have a future making edits on Wikipedia they will only be ones that don't cause a disruption amongst the community of users.  I will also utilize the talk pages in order to state my opinion on certain matters.  I hope you can accept my heartfelt apology and allow me to return to the Wikipedia family.  Thank you so much.  TVFAN24 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm almost inclined to decline all of the blocks, but would welcome a little more input from others (I'm going to ask Wgfinley to comment). My concern is that this set of unblock requests seems to be very similar in character to the last time TVFAN24 was indef blocked, that time for sockpuppeting. Others should see the .  TVFAN24, are we going to have to do this for every single one of our major policies--block you indefinitely, have you go through a heartful series of apologies, and then wait around until you find a new serious policy to break?  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having the same problem. Technically, he's met my condition for unblocking. I'm having a hard time finding it credible, though.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally think an indefinite block is a little extreme. Despite his history of disruptive behavior, TVFAN24 has also made a lot of positive contributions to this encyclopedia. The purpose of a block during an edit-warring situation should be to disciplinate, not to punish. The use of an indefinate block should be used only after repeats of edit-warring. When we outweight the positives with the negatives from TVFAN24, an indefinate block is unjustified IMO. I would go instead with something like a 1 month block.  Farine (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but the last incident which was sockpuppeting, I have learned my lesson from. If you look I have never engaged in that type of behavior again.  Also, if I am allowed back, I will never engage in an edit war again.  I promise all of you.  I am just asking for someone to give me a chance.  I have screwed up a lot but I would like to show you that I have learned from this and will be a useful contributor.  If I am never given the cahnce, I cannot show you.  Thank you so much.  TVFAN24 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but TVFAN24, my point is that it's disheartening to think that okay, we took care of sockpuppetting, now we've taken care of edit warring...what's next? I don't like this idea that we basically let you violate every one of our rules, sometimes very egregiously, and then just come back through a long apology. In both this and the last case, the problem was that you wanted an article to be your way, and you did whatever was necessary to get it that way. Both times, you broke pretty critical rules.  How do we know that next time you won't just find some other means to force your way? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Because I will follow the rules whatever way they are. I won't even state my opinion.  I've done enough disrupting on here to state that.  What I did today was utterly wrong and selfish on my character.  I mean it whatever rules there are thats the way they are supposed to be.  You won't here any fuss about it from me.  I have never said that before but I deserve it.  If I am lucky enough to be unblocked thats it.  There's no going back.  I won't fight with anyone over silly things like this EVER AGAIN.  I've been at this war for too long and I am finally ready to end it for good.  I've put you guys through too much silliness and enoughh is enough.  There are bigger problems out there than this.  I am TRULY TRULY SORRY and you will never have to worry about a problem from me again.  I am ready to play by the rules. Please know that I fully understand that what I did was wrong and not acceptable to the Wikipedia community.  My only hope is that all of you can forgive me one last time and someday allow me back to contribute.  I can't say no more all I can do is now show you.  TVFAN24 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging by Special:Contributions/98.223.95.42, you returned to bouncing back and forth between anonymous edits and this account on May 27, 2011 and did so until Daniel Case put a stop to it on Aug 5, 2011. Why did that happen? How does that jive with "If you look I have never engaged in that type of behavior again"?&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Having reviewed the history a bit more, I'm still puzzled as to why you have to get indef blocked in order to "see the light" and realize what you're doing is wrong? You had editors telling you continually that you needed to collaborate better, so it's not like you haven't been at least shown the light prior to this. I know I hand-wrote something asking you politely to collaborate, and then when you didn't I finally had to template you in order to make it more official. Ultimately, we need to hear from WGFinley, who went out on a limb for you the last time and may not be willing to take another chance. I'm truly hoping this turns out well, but history may not be on your side. (Incidentally, your talk page access does not appear to have been revoked, so you can leave comments without using the unblock template.) -- McDoob  AU  93  04:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to your question that was before I knew to only make edits on my TVFAN24 account. My mentor had told me to stick to the one username when making any edits.  Before being told, I was under the impression that you could use either one.  But as you can see, since then I have only used the TVFAN24 when making edits.  Now I know to make edits only with the created account. If I am lucky enough to be invited back, you can put my TVFAN24 on a watchlist and check back whenever you want to see that I am abiding by the rules.  This has really scared me into seeing that this behavior has got to stop.  I really hate to involve my mentor.  He had been nothing but nice to me and I guess I was hoping that one of you could have faith in me this time.  I can't stop thinking about this whole issue.  I would like all of you to trust me again and have me show you through my actions that I will be a credible and useful contributor on Wikipedia.  I would like my slate to be cleaned and start off fresh.  The ball is now in your court.  Just please know that I was wrong today and for things that were done in the past but I would like to have an opportunity for a fresh start.  Thanks.  TVFAN24 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All I am asking for is ONE LAST CHANCE. I have admitted that i was COMPLETELY WRONG in reverting an article that already reached consensus.  From now on I will no longer engage in an edit war and if you look at my edit history I have made many edits along the way.  Please consider inviting me back to Wikipedia.  I miss you guys.   Thanks.  TVFAN24 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential unblock conditions
Although I'm still not impressed by the original unblock, nor "I miss you guys" (this is not a social networking site), there are a few unblock conditions that I suggest you agree to in order to be unblocked at this time. Do you agree to the above? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You will edit Wikipedia only with this account.  No additional accounts.  No anonymous (IP) editing.
 * 2) You will hold yourself to WP:1RR on all articles.
 * 3) (added) You will accept consensus, and propose new ideas for consensus on the article talkpage
 * 4) Any violations of the above will lead to re-indef-blocking, with no chance for unblocking for a minimum of 6 months (as per WP:OFFER.
 * 5) The first restriction is permanent.  The second can be reviewed in 6 months.


 * As usual, Bwilkins is more than fair. I agree with the proposed unblock conditions. You should remember TVFAN that I reached out to you last month and there was no reply. You were warned I was seeing the type of behavior that got you blocked previously. While I think an indef is pretty strong there's little doubt to me the block was warranted and the conditions to unblock are very fair. I also think we should block her IP from anon editing for a year, this would ensure no violation of accidental anon editing. --WGFinley (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with the above conditions. I think that is very fair and I will completely abide by those rules. You don't have to worry about a problem coming from me again. I have learned my lesson and its not worth it. TVFAN24 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bwilkins for having faith in me and I will not let you down. There is still an autoblock? Is that why I can't edit for a day? TVFAN24 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed - I was in the process of adding the restrictions box at the top ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

linking
I saw your question. Are you saying that for example, there's a link to someone named Erica Screwdriver and you want to change it to Erica Screwdriver so that the one red link becomes two blue links? That would be a horrible thing to do: it would create the false impression that we had an article on Erica Screwdriver when in fact we do not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and also, as per WP:REDLINKS, you can leave the redlinked name in place with wikilinks ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No in other words just removing the link altogether since it links to something that has no article. In the past when I saw a red link for a person I would just unlink it because it is silly when an artilce for the person doesn't yet exist. Oh no I wasn't going to change it to two blue links thats ridiculous. TVFAN24 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are some instances where a redlink would be acceptable ... sometimes it prompts people to be bold and create an article, if the person/place/thing is notable and nobody has gotten around to writing an article on the subject yet. -- McDoob  AU  93  23:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know..
You added Anna Devane to the cast list before all areas aired the episode. It still has yet to air on the West Coast, but I'm allowing it to stay since there's only a short while before the episode airs. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 22:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, it's not most areas, it has to be all areas TVFan! And ending credits can't be used as sources, we've told you this before. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 21:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again TVFan, you're adding it before the time the episode has begun airing on the West Coast and going back to your days of WP:OWN. Do it again, I will report you. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 23:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, I know I'm being a hard-ass, but if I'm not, who is? You added Michael Easton, while a minute, it's till one minute before the episode began to air. Careful, because not only is that not following what being said to follow, it shows WP:OWN. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 22:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but my clock said it was 00 Minutes. Can't help that my clock was off by a whole minute. I'll be sure to chage it. Thanks for letting me know. TVFAN24 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I just know I've been sticklered into the beginning of each other per area, and didn't need anyone else getting in trouble. I wish my clock her fast, it's always slow. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Gina Von Amberg
Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

CBS.Com
Just so you know, CBS.com isn't the greatest source since it isn't third-party. It's the ultimate last resort for those kind of edits. Just letting you know, because you seem to have it stuck on the channel all the time. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 20:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hope Brady/John Black
Your input is requested at the talk page of Hope Brady or John Black (Days of our Lives). Rm994 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits
You know better than to remove sourced material without explaining a reason in the edit summary. Rm994 (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Same thing for articles about news personalities. I know other editors and I have warn you before about this. Bobjim45 (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * List like those need sources otherwise editors may remove any unsourced material. you should check outWP:V, WP:OR and WP:LISTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjim45 (talk

Can you do me a favor?
When you add a source, can you actually add the full sourcing? And not just put it into the ref codes. If you notice, all are properly sourced, except the ones you continue to add. It'll save a lot of editing time. And make sure you direct the character to the correct page. Dr. Tim Reid has his own page on the 1990-99 decade page. And you can reply here on your page, I'll be checking for a possible response. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 19:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also moved Kyle on the template for Y&R since he doesn't belong in the "A" section due to the name Jenkins. He goes under "J" and I correctly linked to his page. Just thought I'd let you know Music Freak 7676 TALK! 18:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Jen Lilley/GH
It was never confirmed she was put on contract, nor does Jen even want a contract. She enjoys the flexibility of being on recurring status. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 19:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Why?
Why did you remove Brett Butler? And why did you add Téa when she was already added? Téa is under contract and was already added. Pay attention please. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 21:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're adding cast members one minute before 3pm PT. If you do it again TVFan I will be reporting you. I'm tired of having to tell you this. It's showing severe signs of WP:OWN. You really need to check yourself again, you're falling into old habits and ignoring these posts are showing it. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 22:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Careful, your edits on the Y&R cast list were a bit messed up. You add one too many "," and there's supposed to be a "0" in front of any solo numbers 1-9. And by removing the source for Fen, you screwed up Summer. And Fen should have been moved before Brett. So look out for these things when editing TVFAN. Don't get sloppy. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 01:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)